It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Iran: Israel should be moved to Europe

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
We are still the old America at heart, we still love a good fight, and we haven’t had one in a long time.

Correction - you are STILL YOUNG America at Heart, that Picks Fights everywhere and sticks her nose where it should not. You are like a Overconfitend Teenager, thinking he is the Best in everything, until he gets his ASS Wooped for the First Time. And you better know that, this time is Coming. Soon.



Go sit in the corner and think about it.

Listen Lady or Gentleman - at your Home you might walk around telling your Husband/Wife what to do, but that as far as it goes.



And take some Prozac while you are there, huh?

I don't eat Pills - they make you Weak.

Just because you have to take a daily dose of Prozac in order to remain Calm and Collected it does not mean others do. Again, do not tell others what to do - I suggest you get rid of that bad Habit.

[edit on 9/12/05 by Souljah]




posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   


Why? The yehudis won that land by right of conquest, conquest from wars that the arabs started.


"Right of conquest?" Give me a break.
So what you're saying is, if the Arabs finally manage to invade Israel, they have every right to kick the Jews out of their homes? Charming.

This is the 21st century, no one but a barbarian recognizes the "right of conquest" anymore.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
War? Thats how the land fell out of Jewish hands in the first place.

The romans were in palestine more or less working with the jewish king, as a sort of client to the romans. Then enough of the natives got riled up, tried to start a war against the romans, lost, and, yes, lost their land. A good reason to not start a war, or, at a minimum, not loose one.



Why isn't that recognized as a legitimate claim to the place yet Israel's war gains are?

Because Israel controls the land now. They won it through war now. If the palestinians want it back, organize into an army, declare war, and take it back. If not, well, then the yehudi ownership stands.

Possession is nine tenths, and the land was Palestinian before it was Israeli. Trying to justify it by way of war, or by vote, does not change that fact.

That land was British before it was gifted to the yehudis and paleistinians.


She freely quotes Koffi Annan's reaction to this latest outburst from the Iranian President, yet when faced with quotes casting an unfavourable pall over Israel from the very same man she argues the toss.

Ah.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
if the Arabs finally manage to invade Israel, they have every right to kick the Jews out of their homes?

Of course. Thats what they were doing in the first place. If they didn't want to risk their land becoming occupied by the jews, then they shouldn't've gone to war with them. The war certainly coudl've gone the other way and the league coudl've established a sheikdom in jerusalem. Would anyone really care about any jewish emigres who left the country and complained that they wanted their land back? Of course not. So why listen to the palestinians? Whats anyone else supposed to do, if its their land, then take it.

Charming.

'Snot a charming world.

This is the 21st century, no one but a barbarian recognizes the "right of conquest" anymore.

bar-bar-bar



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
That land was British before it was gifted to the yehudis and paleistinians.

People are misunderstanding the whole 'mandate' system. It did not equate to ownership, it amounted to a stewardship. The British were looking after Palestine on behalf of the League of Nations following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. They had no absolutely no ownership rights over Palestine whatsoever.


The British Mandate of Palestine was a swathe of territory in the Middle East including the modern territories of Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip, formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire, which the League of Nations entrusted to the United Kingdom to administer in the aftermath of World War I as a Mandate Territory.

British Mandate


The mandates were divided into three distinct groups based upon the level of development each population had achieved at that time.

The first group or Class A mandates were areas fomerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire deemed to "...have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory..." The Class A mandates assigned to France were Syria and Lebanon; Iraq, Palestine (which then included Transjordan) was assigned to the United Kingdom (UK). By 1949 all of these mandates had been replaced by new governments.

League of Nations Mandate

Those saying that Britain "gave the UN" Palestine are mistaken. Britain relinquished its mandate responsibilities, it had no ownership of Palestine whatsoever. The mandate is clear in that the land was meant to be given over to the soveriegn independent state after shaking off the shackles of the defeated Ottoman Empire. There was no mention of partitioning the land to give to European Jews.


Originally posted by Nygdan
Ah.

Exactly


[edit on 10/12/05 by subz]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Those saying that Britain "gave the UN" Palestine are mistaken. Britain relinquished its mandate responsibilities, it had no ownership of Palestine whatsoever. The mandate is clear in that the land was meant to be given over to the soveriegn independent state after shaking off the shackles of the defeated Ottoman Empire. There was no mention of partitioning the land to give to European Jews.




Blah, blah, blah.....what difference does it all make?

FACT: Israel is back home and no power can remove her.

FACT: There is nothing you can do to change this.

FACT: Whining about it will get you no where.

FACT: The Arab world had its shot, more than once, and has continued to blow it; if they could not take Israel way back when, they sure as hell can’t even touch her now.

FACT: No amount of terrorist action will change any of this.

FACT: Crying will get you no where.

FACT: cavscout is done wasting his time here on people who can’t face reality, going to look for a fun thread elsewhere (the anti-everything-except-Islam crowd always ruins the conversations)


[edit on 10-12-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

League of Nations Mandate

There was no mention of partitioning the land to give to European Jews.




The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.

At that time, the area has been:




The Palestine Mandate - The Council of the League of Nations:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people[...]"

 


And up from May 14,1948, the Jewish State of Israel is a fact and on May 11, 1949 Israel joined the United Nations as a full member.

The U.N. General Assembly recently unanimoulsy adopted a resolution "rejecting denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in full or in part,"

and Iran is a signatory of this November 1 U.N. resolution designating January 27 as International Holocaust Day in commemoration of the six million Jews who died in the Holocaust.

It will be very interesting to see how Iran as a signatory will fulfill this resolution in the future.


[edit on 10-12-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Even the Suadis are fumed that Ahmadinejad marred a summit dedicated to showing Islam’s moderate face by calling for Israel to be moved to Europe:




The Iranian president seems to have lost his direction," said Gilan al-Ghamidi, a prominent commentator in Saudi media.

"Iran should be logical if it wants to receive the support of the world. The president didn't score any points. He lost points."



and his conservative allies in Iran were growing disillusioned. Hamid Reza Taraqi, a leader of a hard-line party, the Islamic Coalition Society:




"The president has to choose his words carefully. He can convey his message to the world in better language tone,"



AP: Iran Leader's Remarks Draw Ire From Saudis



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
The Mandate was in favor of the establishment for the Jewish people a homeland in Palestine.

No the Balfour Declaration was in favour of partitioning Palestine for Jews. The mandate was simply a legal responsibility given to some of the victors of WW1 over the vanquished provinces, it couldnt be in favour of anything.

Balfour's letter could of said anything and it held about as much legality over Palestine as me writing a letter giving Jew's Manhattan.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Balfour's letter could of said anything and it held about as much legality over Palestine as me writing a letter giving Jew's Manhattan.


You seem to forget it was later incorporated into a treaty which made it very legal.

Treaty of Sèvres
(1920; never adopted, superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne).

www.lib.byu.edu...

Map of the area in question.


www.hri.org...



Language from the Declaration was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine

en.wikipedia.org...



2nd source used solely to show that it was incorporated into the Sevres treaty total accuracy not confirmed since the source is questionable too many.

Better source then the above which confirms the very same.



www.palestinefacts.org...

The mandate system was established by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations as formulated at the Paris Peace Conference (January-June 1919). Under this article it was stated that the territories inhabited by peoples unable to stand by themselves would be entrusted to advanced nations until such time as the local population could handle their own affairs. This concept was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919.

Representatives of Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, and Belgium met at San Remo, Italy, in April 1920, to discuss methods of executing the Treaty of Versailles. Members of the supreme council of the Allies took leading parts. The basic features of a peace treaty with Turkey (the Treaty of Sèvres) were adopted, and mandates in the Middle East were allotted.






[edit on 12/10/2005 by shots]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Shots, I searched for "balfour", "partition", "israel" and "jew/ish" in that treaty with no hits. It would be pretty hard pressed to include the relevant aspects of the Balfour declaration without the words "partition" and "jewish".

From what I read, that was a peace treaty and the British were put in charge of controlling Palestine until such a time as it could become independent as a sovereign entity. The mandate stipulations that I quoted above are quite clear on the duties of the mandate to the people of the mandated territory. There is no expressed permission to divvy up the land as outlined in a nearly 40 year old (at the time) letter from a then civil servant.

I am not arguing that the Balfour Declaration didn't come to fruition, its obvious that it did. What I was rebutting was Riwka's, and others, claim that the British had the right to "give Palestine" to the UN to split into what ever they wanted. That is just not the case, the British relinquished their mandate to the newly created UN who assumed the same role as the failed League of Nations.

Basically, the partition of Israel was a pure UN decision based on the Balfour Declaration. It had nothing to do with Britain's mandate and if the mandate had been carried out as it should there would be a single Palestine today.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Shots, I searched for "balfour", "partition", "israel" and "jew/ish" in that treaty with no hits. It would be pretty hard pressed to include the relevant aspects of the Balfour declaration without the words "partition" and "jewish".



I am sure you would have to be a lawyer to find the language, however there is no doubt it is in the treaty since several sources state it is. Also the Balouf Declaration was very clear as to its intent.


His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

www.wsu.edu:8080...




[edit on 12/10/2005 by shots]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
So you're saying the British government has the right to authour declarations assigning ownership of other peoples lands? In foreign and independent, sovereign nations no less? Surely you jest?


Also, to cap it off. That was written while Balfour was merely Lord Balfour, not Prime Minister Balfour. It has no credence aside from the fact that it was actually implemented by the UN. The UN gave it legitimacy as a concept, the declaration itself was just a kind of press release of the will of the British government at the time.

Lets hope no other dying Imperialist power issues a Declaration that divvys up other peoples land. If they do we'll be forced to recognize, legitimize and implement it



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
So you're saying the British government has the right to authour declarations assigning ownership of other peoples lands? In foreign and independent, sovereign nations no less? Surely you jest?


So are you also saying that the British had no right to create Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Jordan?

The British gave those lands away also.
Perhaps they should all be given back to the Turks so they can rebuild the Ottoman empire and start taking other people's lands once again.

BTW, Palestine and those other nations were not independent or sovereign.

EDIT: Put Syria in by mistake

[edit on 10-12-2005 by AceOfBase]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
So you're saying the British government has the right to authour declarations assigning ownership of other peoples lands?


No what I am saying is Britain gave the UN the power when they religuished their rule/mandate to do that as did the treaties in which it was incorporated.

As to who Balfour was at the time is moot the fact is the docuent was approved by the British cabinet



I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's
Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
www.wsu.edu:8080...


Edit to add, thanks Ace I was not aware of what you stated about the other areas Britain gave away




[edit on 12/10/2005 by shots]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Here a letter from Lord Balfour in 1920, in which he reminds the Arabs of what they now have because of the British and asks them to allow that one small slice of land to be let go.



www.yahoodi.com...

"So far as the Arabs are concerned --I hope they will remember that it is we who have established an independent Arab sovereignty of the Hedjaz. I hope they will remember it is we who desire in Mesopotamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing, autonomous Arab State, and I hope that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch -- for it is no more than that geographically, whatever it may be historically -- that small notch in what are now Arab territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it."

- A.J. Balfour, July 12, 1920


If it weren't for the British they wouldn't have any independent Arab states at all. They would still be living under the Ottoman Turks.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Good point, AceOfBase.

Furthermore, I ran across an enlightening Persian article on this matter, a very interesting read:


The real problem with this comment is that, the "young black" man as Nostradamus calls him, does not know his history. We
all know that the area now called Lebanon and Israel, used to be called The Levant, and more importantly before that, it was part of what the English history books call the Persian Empire. We also know that the Jews had migrated from Iran to that area. Not many English history books
will tell you that. They were part of the Empire, as Darius refers to them as the Saka at Behsitun.




So the alien Islamists in Iran first of all need to learn that a "bit of Europe" was given to the Jews. That is what the Balfour Treaty was all about. In fact if any comment has to be made, it is the fact that the Brits did such an awful job of redrawing the map of Western Asia (or Middle East from the English point of view), that there are wars all over the place. No Englishman sat down with a wise man of Iran, and asked him what the map was like when the Pax Iranica had managed to govern the area three times for three hundred years.

Europeans did give a part of Europe to the Jews





seekerof



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by Nygdan
That land was British before it was gifted to the yehudis and paleistinians.

People are misunderstanding the whole 'mandate' system. It did not equate to ownership,

The british controled palestine via war. The internationalists recognized the colonialism via mandates.

They had no absolutely no ownership rights over Palestine whatsoever.

They owned it via force. The same way anyone owns any land. They defeated the previous owners, the Turks, in war, and occupied the land. Hence, they owned it. This was then legally reconized in Versailles.

The mandate is clear in that the land was meant to be given over to the soveriegn independent state

From the source you cite

In June 1922 the League of Nations passed the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate was an explicit document regarding Britain's responsibilities and powers of administration in Palestine including "secur[ing] the establishment of the Jewish national home,

So, in brief, the British defeated the Turks, occupied the territory, had a conference with the other victorious allies, carved up the world, and looked at palestine as a place for a jewish state, even appointing, apparently, one of the drafters of the balfour declaration as the High Commisioner of Palestine. They owned palestine. They occupied it. They administered it. They determined its future.

The underlying point is that land is controlled by power, and international politics is power politics. The Victors after WWI set up a world system that favoured them, created treaties and held summits that sought to legitimatize their power and position. The land 'in spirit' I suppose belongs to the people that had lived there for a longish time. But what of it? That claim has not real basis. If anything it should all be returned to Turkey, not the jews or palestinians.

And as it is now, the yehudis have the tanks and weapons to hold on to the west bank. If the palestinans actually want it back, they'll have to fight for it. Thing is, there's no fight left in them. They aren't interested, and neither is the rest of the arab world nor even teh extended muslim world including Iran. They won't be sending any Armies over the Jordan. They won't be laying seige to Tel Aviv.
And if they could, did, and won, then more power to them.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:04 AM
link   
In a speach that was broadcast live on state television, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the second time in a week said that the Holocaust was a myth. He also said the Europeans have used the "myth" of the Holocaust to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world. (more)

He also said the State of Israel should be moved to "Europe, Canada, the United States, or Alaska,” in his latest anti-Israel outburst. (more)

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the ultimate say, has backed Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel's elimination.

The Swedish parliament ceased all bilateral contacts with the Iranian parliament Tuesday, the Jerusalem Post has learned.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   
nope, he's not pushing for a fight in any way, shape or form, is he?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join